If it's going to be made purely out of points, wouldn't that mean that meshes would have holes? Even if you had tons of dots, there still would be holes.
[QUOTE=st ef you;25413276]This plus procedural generation? Actually, I really don't see how this would work together,but someone might find a way. Hopefully.[/QUOTE]
Stop throwing around procedural, there's nothing procedural in this.
[editline]16th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=edja007;25448302]If it's going to be made purely out of points, wouldn't that mean that meshes would have holes? Even if you had tons of dots, there still would be holes.[/QUOTE]
only if you zoom in really really close.
[QUOTE=Hesychasmos;25409445]This is true.
If they made a game using this technology that was all about destroying a mountain, I would probably play it nonstop for weeks.[/QUOTE]
How coincidental that there's a game just like that.
Can't for the life of me remember...
[QUOTE=treythepunkid;25447937]
- This whole system sounds like a waste of memory. Why use billions of points to make a flat wall when a two triangle polygon can do the same job?
[/QUOTE]
The point is that the wall isn't flat, it has a texture.
[editline]16th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=ZapDing;25448810]How coincidental that there's a game just like that.
Can't for the life of me remember...[/QUOTE]
It probably doesn't have anything to do with our computing power being too slow.
2 tri plane can make a flat plane, it can never make a wall.
There is no depth to it. Sure there are normals and all other crap, but in the end it's all fake and will never look as good as true detail, like on sculpted meshes
[QUOTE=Onyx3173;25446992]Or you just missed the point where you were trying to make yourself look better than Generic.Monk. Generic.Monk never said that 1280x768 is the only HD resolution, only that it was [B]a[/B] HD resolution. And just because many of us prefer to play at 1920x1080 or higher does not mean everyone does.
[url]http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey[/url]
16% of users are still at 1280x1024 with the only resolution having a higher percentage of users being 1680x1050 with 17.7%.[B][/B][/QUOTE]
If you had read a few posts back you would've known this isn't at all about what is HD and what is not, it's about the fact that [b]1024x768[/b] is a resolution insufficient as of today's standards (with the exception of mobile applications) and 1024x768 being "nearly HD" doesn't excuse "unlimited detail"'s apparent shortcomings in resolution. As you can see in that survey, only 8.50% of the users run at 1024x768, and 1920 x 1080 is the third most common resolution, and it's climbing (contrary to 1280 x 1024). They should release a demo running at 1280x1024 or more, if this is even possible, as this technology will never get off the ground if it isn't scalable. That's the one question I'd like to ask the devs: "How well does this system scale?".
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;25472372] 1024x768 being "nearly HD" doesn't excuse "unlimited detail"'s [/QUOTE]
Whoah there, I was just nitpicking for the fun of it. I'm just as skeptical about this as you are.
[QUOTE=edja007;25448302]If it's going to be made purely out of points, wouldn't that mean that meshes would have holes? Even if you had tons of dots, there still would be holes.[/QUOTE]
And so do molecules if you want to look in that close.
[QUOTE=edja007;25448302]If it's going to be made purely out of points, wouldn't that mean that meshes would have holes? Even if you had tons of dots, there still would be holes.[/QUOTE]
There is space between atoms, you know. Are you full of holes?
If yes, you should get that looked at.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;25477380]There is space between atoms, you know. Are you full of holes?
If yes, you should get that looked at.[/QUOTE]
Fucking A, you changed my perception of reality and now I'm fucking bleeding all over the place! Thanks a lot, asshole!
[QUOTE=treythepunkid;25447937]
- I REALLY hated how they showed the way LOD works on polygon models. Obviously if you noclip into a open area you would never get to in-game and moved into the playable area OF COURSE the LOD is going to look bad. Proper LOD is invisible and works really well.
[/QUOTE]
Define proper LOD, unless you have thousands of different models switching, you're going to notice. GTA IV and Just Cause 2 are example where LOD just won't work. You're moving around a lot and WILL notice the popping.
As for Unlimited Detail as a whole, I can't see it taking off. You have to keep in mind the length and size of the games coming out nowadays, if the modelers had to create these models atom by atom using point clouds, the time and money it takes to create these games will go up astronomically.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;25477380]There is space between atoms, you know. Are you full of holes?
If yes, you should get that looked at.[/QUOTE]
I would assume rendering individual points would be no different to rendering individual pixels in a 2d texture; If it occupies more than 1 pixel on the screen you just spread it out over several.
[editline]18th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=benjgvps;25477843]
As for Unlimited Detail as a whole, I can't see it taking off. You have to keep in mind the length and size of the games coming out nowadays, if the modelers had to create these models atom by atom using point clouds, the time and money it takes to create these games will go up astronomically.[/QUOTE]
Actually as stated in the video, artists can create polygon models as usual and then convert them to point cloud data. Which is obviously gonna bump the file size up several times since the concept of shared vertices will disappear. I'd like to hear more about their compression algorithms that claims to solve this.
[QUOTE=Hesychasmos;25409445]This is true.
If they made a game using this technology that was all about destroying a mountain, I would probably play it nonstop for weeks.[/QUOTE]Minecraft?
[QUOTE=The mouse;25489899]Minecraft?[/QUOTE]
Except instead of "unlimited" detail you have three-feet wide goddamn cubes.
I wonder how they'll solve aliasing
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
